>>>> With such a parameter, a sheer number of already defined CRS
>>>> becomes available for the use in the geo: URIs.
>>> Another issue that bothers me is that the sheer number of defined
>>> CRSes would almost make it impossible to support all those CRSes -
>>> which would probably hurt interopability.
>> First of all, there's PROJ.4 [1], readily supporting more than
>> approximately...
>> $ grep -vE ^\# /usr/share/proj/epsg | wc -l
>> 3519
>> $
>> ... coordinate systems.
[...]
> PROJ.4 does not have the level of normative endorsement as does the
> OGP/EPSG database of CRS info. The OGC, ISO, the OGP, NATO, US DoD,
> the European SDI (INSPIRE), and many more now use the EPSG database
> as a normative reference.
I haven't made a claim that PROJ.4 has any level of normative
endorsement.
I've just tried to point that, while there are thousands
coordinate systems in use in the world, there're also thousands
of coordinate systems already supported by free (as in freedom)
software packages.
Therefore, I see no reason to restrict particular location
``encodings'' (and the geo: URI scheme could be viewed as such
an encoding) to particular coordinate systems.
> You also need to look at the use cases - many from the emergency
> services, 911, risk mitigation, location services, and related
> communities - that drives much of the work here, NENA, in the OGC,
> and other communities of interest.
--
FSF associate member #7257
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
